Are modern bikes significantly better than they were 30 years ago?

Ash_Pole

I've got a 30 year old bike I inherited. It was a decent one at the time (I think), a Ken Bird hand built frame. It looks very dated compared to modern ones now though.

I'm training for a long ride in September. If I splashed out on a new bike, would it make that much difference (as in use less energy to ride)?

[Deleted User]

I ve just bought an all carbon framed Planet X racing bike after years of using my Reynolds 531 Tour of Britain hand built touring bike which in real terms was much more expensive than the carbon job. Its weight is only 8kgs, maybe 2 kgs lighter than the old Jack Taylor bike.
I would say that the modern bike is a lot stiffer and more tiring to ride despite the weight difference. I used to tour Europe occasionally averaging well over 100 miles a day and I never needed special padded cycle shorts so comfortable and fore giving was the Jack Taylor. I can t imagine how I would suffer on the Planet X, so far anything over 15 miles is agony ! but then I don t have a nice leather Brooks Professional saddle on the Planet X , I have a carbon razor blade.
Personally I would scratch the itch and get the new one bought , mine was virtually new at only £600 from Ebay. One thing I really would like though is an electronic geared model and I would look out for a used model with either a Campag/Shimano or Sram electronic gears. One day all bikes will have this. Modern racing bikes have the gears behind the brake leavers like my Sram double tap. They don t work any better because the cables are longer than when they were on the downtube but electronic ones certainly do and I actually lust after a set but they are very pricey and cost more than my bike did . I don`t think modern bikes are better, just a bit lighter and if I fall badly on the carbon bike I think I could easily damage it.

Johnmcl7

It's a hard question to quantify an answer to, I'd say a modern bike is likely to have better brakes and a better drivetrain (wider range of gears, smoother shifting, integrated shifters etc,) and a bit lighter. I wouldn't say stiffness is a standard feature on modern bikes, you can get pretty much any style you want from a stiff rigid road bike aimed for speed to a softer steel framed road bike intended for riding all day.

I think the easiest way to get an answer would be to find a local place that hires road bikes and take one out for a day then see how much improvement there is for you.

John

Nasqueron

sacsquacco wrote: »

I would say that the modern bike is a lot stiffer and more tiring to ride despite the weight difference. I used to tour Europe occasionally averaging well over 100 miles a day and I never needed special padded cycle shorts so comfortable and fore giving was the Jack Taylor. I can t imagine how I would suffer on the Planet X, so far anything over 15 miles is agony ! but then I don t have a nice leather Brooks Professional saddle on the Planet X , I have a carbon razor blade.

How much of that is simply age though
Modern road bikes are usually designed for weight so have a harder lighter saddle hence the padding (or sacrifice the weight and get a comfier one - the Specialized Avatar Comp I have on my commuter road bike is very comfy for a small road saddle

sacsquacco wrote: »

if I fall badly on the carbon bike I think I could easily damage it.

An old myth, carbon is stronger than alloy and a crash that kills a carbon frame would kill an alloy frame - carbon is used in planes and F1 cars, if it was fragile as the old stories go, no-one would ever use it.

On the OP points

Newer road bikes have tended to shift the gears onto the drops and integrated them into the brakes whether 2 leavers or the SRAM double-tap making them easier to use vs say the one on the frame or the old style sticking on top of the drop bars so they're simpler to ride with. A better range of gears (especially for climbing) is available and brakes are better - there is plenty of love for the retro and/or steel bikes

[Deleted User]

Thanks for the saddle info, I will buy one . I dont like the padded shorts but I could do with a better saddle.The Brooks Professionals are still available but mine took a long time and lots of neats foot oil to be at its best.It was good enough for Greg Lemond to win the Tour de France with though.

SailorSam

Until i found Mse, i always thought a bike was a bike. Little difference between one and another. I paid less than £100 for my mountain bikeen about 15yrs ago in Makro, but i don't go out on it much, perhaps up-and-down the road if it's a sunny day, it's to hard work.
But then people here started telling me i'd been conned. I hadn't bought a real bike.

Nebulous2

I have a 1980s Motobecane steel bike, which is almost completely original. Changing gears is a faff, the saddle is very hard and the brakes are terrible in the rain. There is something very likeable about it, but in a retro - buy an old sports car for a nice day sort of way.

My modern carbon bike is efficient, lighter and everything just works. It's not really comparing like with like though, as my steel bike was a reasonably cheap bike even back when it was new whereas my carbon bike wasn't.

I had always had a bike, generally a cheap one, but in moving to a road bike I started with an aluminium alloy bike, which is cheaper than a carbon one and was certainly useable.

It's up to you. The one thing I don't think you will get is using less energy to ride. When you are tired the new bike could be more comfortable, you are more likely to hit the gear changes with little thought applied, but a long ride will still be draining and hard work - if it is otherwise you aren't doing it right!

[Deleted User]

I agree mostly with Nebulous2 but my Planet X carbon bike with its small 23 mm rock hard tyres relays every little crinkle or roughness in the tarmac directly through to the suspension area, thats my buttocks. I m now watching the road like a hawk to avoid the rough bits which are mostly close to the kerbs. The forks are pretty steeply raked too and for comfort a bike with a more gentle slope on the forks is preferred and they re less twitchy too.
In my bike touring days I never got one blister in the bum with my Jack Taylor which has forks and frame meant for touring. But if the OP is like me he will want a modern racing bike not a heavy mountain bike with heavy suspension.They are a pain to ride but they are certainly as comfortable as an armchair.

esuhl

SailorSam wrote: »

Until i found Mse, i always thought a bike was a bike. Little difference between one and another. I paid less than £100 for my mountain bikeen about 15yrs ago in Makro, but i don't go out on it much, perhaps up-and-down the road if it's a sunny day, it's to hard work.
But then people here started telling me i'd been conned. I hadn't bought a real bike.

I couldn't see why anyone would pay more than they had to for a bike. But my "new" £450 bike (about 5 years old) is so much better than the cheapest-possible ones I'd had before. The gears are much more precise, the shocks more responsive, the brakes far better. And it's lighter.

Keeping a bike well-maintained is probably the most important thing for performance. I'd probably prefer to ride a well-maintained cheap bike over a badly maintained expensive one.

If you're only riding for a few miles at a leisurely pace, it's easy enough on a cheap bike. If you want to ride 30 miles off-road without needing an ambulance, the benefits of a lighter, more comfortable bike are more apparent.

Nebulous2

SailorSam wrote: »

Until i found Mse, i always thought a bike was a bike. Little difference between one and another. I paid less than £100 for my mountain bikeen about 15yrs ago in Makro, but i don't go out on it much, perhaps up-and-down the road if it's a sunny day, it's to hard work.
But then people here started telling me i'd been conned. I hadn't bought a real bike.

It's like cars, there are advocates for very cheap cars and those who like very dear ones. Usage is also a big factor. One statistic I have seen is that the average bike in this country does 47 miles, ever. Any bike will cope with that. Some people are doing twice or three times that every week.

A cheap bike wont last for long if it is getting pretty serious usage. Equally the very expensive ones may wear quite quickly as they are made for light-weight rather than longevity. Expensive alloy cassettes will wear more quickly than a mid-range steel one, as will narrow 11 speed chains.

There's also a theory, probably amongst people who try to justify expensive bikes, that people who buy heavy, poorly set-up bikes are so put off by trying it that they give up, whereas they would have continued if their experience had been better.

You pays your money and takes your choice, however I wouldn't go bottom-end supermarket bike if you are going to use it a lot.

fred246

I have got a modern bike, a 1960s bike and a 1980s bike. With the tyres pumped up, the wheels trued and the drivetrain lubricated I can go very nearly as fast on the older bikes as I can on the new. The big difference is in their ability to stop. The brakes on my older bikes are far less effective than on my new one.